Having met Richard Carrier recently, a brief discussion completely demolishes the Tomb Raider theory.
On Saturday, June 24th, 2006, Mr. Carrier gave a speech at the West Coast Atheists meet, and he mentioned an item upon which I questioned him after the festivities.
It seems I was way off (and honestly, a great many folks are and have been for some centuries no less, so I don’t feel so bad) on the crucifixion misconceptions.
I paraphrase for the nonce, so forgive me.
He gave a most interesting synopsis on that most disputed event lo these two millenia old.
It turns out, not only did the Romans work hand-in-hand with the Judaic authorities: they also as a rule, enforced specific tribal customs.
Bear with me here. It takes no degree in anthropology, sociology, or any other-ology to see that an empty tomb may very well be indicative of a very unsavory sort of practice. Stealing dead bodies? Of course, the authorities would step in, and investigate. Desecration of a burial site would prompt near-suicidal rioting. The Hebrews took their dead very seriously (who doesn’t?). After all, they believed the soul lingered for approximately three days, before said soul figured out: Hey, I’m literally outta here! Who needs a pissed off ghost loitering about the premises?
And yet, as Mr. Carrier points out, we have absolutely no indication, external or internal, in that book of fables that the Romans even showed the slightest inclination to look into the matter. I believe Mr. Carrier may have pointed this out in his lecture, but that these guards were put on the tomb, and ran away (McDowell, in his crappy book ETDAV, makes much of this: desertion of duty would mean sentence of death), and yet no inquiry post ex facto?
Honky, please.
It is a small step in logic indeed, to see how ridiculous the entire argument is. That the alleged ‘Matthew’ made the commentary that the Jews spread the rumor that the body was stolen was obviously a pre-emptive device
We are also told a number of other untruths: crucifixion was a despicable death (yes, it was, but to the Romans only), bodies were tossed to be eaten by dogs (this isn’t based on anything more than assumptions), Joseph of Arimathea was a secret follower (see here for a better extrapolation).
And we have a cast of characters who appear for the sake of the story, and are summarily dropped when they’re no longer of use: Joseph of Arimathea, Stephen (Acts), Nicodemus, they all appear only when needed, and vanish (or killed off) when the point is made, or the storyline requires them no more.
Don’t feel bad: this carousel of carnival nonsense, too, once captivated me. That was before I applied Occam’s razor to the bloody thing, and found, after paring away the multitudinous layers of detritus, nothing in the core of it.
Let us now close the door of the tomb, and leave the dead to their eternal sleep. There is no hereafter: no life after: for, as the Bard put it, “In this sleep of death what dreams may come…”
There shall be none. It is sad fact, but fact nonetheless. So dream now, dream well, highly and wildly – for there is naught else but the void when we pass. So speak, think, write, sculpt, paint; send the ripples across the lake of humanity while you can. For life is short, and there is nothing after.
Till the next post, then.
33 comments:
I can’t remember were, but I have heard this objection before. I am pretty sure it wasn’t Carrier. I haven’t looked into the objection (since there doesn’t seem to be any material available), but at first look, it does seem like an argument from silence. Do you know of any other mainstream scholarship that says this about the Roman/Jews working hand and hand and enforcing tribal customs?
RA
Considering the vast amount of gospel manuscript found, how come no one has ever found at least one fragment describing what "really" happened?
What is your theory about that?
BF:
It is an argument from silence. A rather loud one (hehehehe). Carrier said as much in his lecture.
Do you know of any other mainstream scholarship that says this about the Roman/Jews working hand and hand and enforcing tribal customs?
I haven't really looked that deeply into it: it's 1 of those D'oh! things, as in, "Why didn't I think of that?"
It makes a helluva lot of sense.
Moreover, people tend to leave out details that are less than complementary to the story. That's just human nature.
Wait till your kids reach teenage status: you'll learn the TRUE meaning of an argument from silence, lemmee tell you.
What happened to the Roman guards? It stands to reason that an inquiry would be brought about, to investigate. McDowell DID go on & on about it, in that book o' his.
The more I look at the tale, the more it falls apart.
Goose:
Considering the vast amount of gospel manuscript found, how come no one has ever found at least one fragment describing what "really" happened?
What?
'Vast amount'? Just because people made oodles of copies, that's not what I'd call evidence.
Maybe you could do me a favor, & list the 'vast amount' of fragmentary papyrii/vellum found that supports the fable?
What is your theory about that?
I think you know the answer to that.
RA
I know you've already heard the figures concerning the manuscript evidence but since you asked here is a link:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
RA
Please forgive my density.
Are you saying that since the Romans abetted the Jews in their rituals, and since there was no inquiry into the empty tomb, that it had been empty all along?
Goose:
& off we go on another wild goose chase.
(Sorry, figure of speech over here).
From the site:
But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer.
Nope. None of these people made the extravagant claim of being the ultimate salvation.
we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Argument from popularity.
In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
There are 11,000 verifiable copies of the Koran in an Iranian library alone.
In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.
3 guesses why that is.
There was a huge effort in that era to weed out 'forgeries'. I say they were all forgeries.
I find this somewhat disingenous:
Date Orig. Written MSS Date
96 CE circa 125 CE
On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others.
These tired old refrains are old, old, old.
I forget the name of that particular fallacy. Shifting the burden of proof, maybe?
Your NT is wildly inaccurate, disharmonius w/each other on so many levels, it tosses this argument right on the trashheap.
Sorry, I did ask you though.
karen:
Please forgive my density.
You are forgiven. ;)
Are you saying that since the Romans abetted the Jews in their rituals, and since there was no inquiry into the empty tomb, that it had been empty all along?
But for the last part, correct:
there was no tomb at all.
"Ah, I see!" said the blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw.
Thanks.
RA
"Goose:
& off we go on another wild goose chase.
(Sorry, figure of speech over here)."
I actually was familiar with the term. Too many hollywood movies...
"Nope. None of these people made the extravagant claim of being the ultimate salvation."
Which is the main problem isn't it? Your philosophy doesn't allow for supernatural events thus there must be some naturalistic explanation to the resurrection.
"we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Argument from popularity."
How is that fallacious? Either they outweigh the others or not.
"In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
There are 11,000 verifiable copies of the Koran in an Iranian library alone."
Do they cover the same geographic&temporal span? Anyway, that would be a red herring wouldn't it? The amount of Korans in a library has nothing to do with the manuscript evidence for the NT.
"In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.
3 guesses why that is.
There was a huge effort in that era to weed out 'forgeries'. I say they were all forgeries."
This is speculation isn't it? I could just as well say that all the non-biblical 1st century eye-witness accounts were weeded (wed?wood?) out by the jewish scribes.
"I find this somewhat disingenous:
Date Orig. Written MSS Date
96 CE circa 125 CE"
How so?
"On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others.
These tired old refrains are old, old, old.
I forget the name of that particular fallacy. Shifting the burden of proof, maybe?"
It's not a shift of anything. It just means that one should be objective when considering the textual evidence per se. If your philosophy however prevents supernatural events from happening then that is the reason why you can't aceppt them.
goose:
Which is the main problem isn't it? Your philosophy doesn't allow for supernatural events thus there must be some naturalistic explanation to the resurrection.
There was no resurrection. No tomb. De nada.
How is that fallacious? Either they outweigh the others or not.
It was a popular tale at the time. Doesn't make it true.
The amount of Korans in a library has nothing to do with the manuscript evidence for the NT.
Neither then, does the Iliad, or any other ancient work.
This is speculation isn't it?
My point being: it's all guesswork. Not very good guesswork, either.
How so?
I read it as the circa date being when it was circulated, but the actual date is somewhat a few years ahead. It's insinuating that the text was existent at a time when it wasn't.
It just means that one should be objective when considering the textual evidence per se.
Calling it 'textual evidence' lends weight & credence where there is none.
If your philosophy however prevents supernatural events from happening then that is the reason why you can't aceppt them.
My 'philosophy', as you term it, is based on empirical evidence and the natural world. I'm not 'preventing' supernormal events from happening.
They don't.
Wow Ra, I bet the atheist confrence was great. Lots of well informed peoples brains to pick.
I have read in one or more of the many "jesus conspiracy" books I have read over the years, that there was no tomb. With every book there is a little bit more info. One day I am going to sit down and piece them all together.
I dont believe Jesus was a real person, but I do believe that many princes and kings believed they were the living incarnation of him. I dont know how I got off on this? My brain is wandering again. lol
As for goosehenry's statement....There are many documents and ancient writings from the first and second centry that prove that the NT was always in question. Can you say SKISM??? The great skism of the time was between the gnostics and the othodoxs. And lets not forget that the first christians thought of themselves as Jews and who became the majority christians??? The Romans! The romans were already practicing their own version of the sun saviour cult, Mithraism. And what were the romans most famous for?? Absorbing the religions and cultural beliefs of their conquered peoples and blending them with their own. That is why Rome was so seccessful. You could say that america is an extention of the Roman impire.
Goosehenry here is a link that really examins the NT and other writings of the time. The NT was very much in question from the very begining as well as the crucifiction.
http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id14.html
SNTC:
All good points.
Even when I was researching xtianity, when I was interested in joining, I could see right thru the 'multiple copies' theorem.
If I bring a 1000 copies of a forged affadavit to court, does that lend credence to it? It's still forged, no matter what the volume.
If the Lord of the Rings is uncovered 2000 years from now by archeologists, someone somewhere is gonna deify the bloody thing: look how many copies there are! It was popular!
It's all terribly illogical.
RA
Regarding the 11,000 Korans: that is like saying the bible must be true since it's the most sold book in the world.
We are talking about manuscript evidence, that is different. And moreover the character of the Bible and Koran are entirely different, the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts while the Koran consists of mohammeds personal experiences.
"My point being: it's all guesswork. Not very good guesswork, either."
Interesting statement. In order to value it as "not very good guesswork" you have to know what really happened also.
"Calling it 'textual evidence' lends weight & credence where there is none."
Textual evidence that the versions we have today are what the writers originally wrote. Even you have to agree that the more of this we find the more we can know what the gospels originally said. So yes, the more textual evidence there is, covering temporal&geographical span, the more weight this claim has. No?
What do you date the gospels? When were they according to you written?
"If the Lord of the Rings is uncovered 2000 years from now by archeologists, someone somewhere is gonna deify the bloody thing: look how many copies there are! It was popular!
It's all terribly illogical."
It is logical, but i don't see the analogy. LOTR doesn't make any historical claims.
Goose:
Regarding the 11,000 Korans: that is like saying the bible must be true since it's the most sold book in the world.
Exactly. Argument from popularity.
We are talking about manuscript evidence, that is different.
You have a few scraps of papyrii. That's not a manuscript.
And moreover the character of the Bible and Koran are entirely different, the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts
Sketchy 3rd person anecdotes, is more accurate.
Interesting statement. In order to value it as "not very good guesswork" you have to know what really happened also.
But no one really does, do they? Your contradictions between gospels tells me how poorly knit together the tale is.
Textual evidence that the versions we have today are what the writers originally wrote.
What, you mean the multiple copies? That's not proof at all.
Even you have to agree that the more of this we find the more we can know what the gospels originally said.
I'm at a point, where I don't really care all that much about 'more evidence', to be honest. That's lending weight to something that has none.
So yes, the more textual evidence there is, covering temporal&geographical span, the more weight this claim has.
Let me know when this occurs, wouldja?
What do you date the gospels? When were they according to you written?
It's still all guesswork. Have you looked into the Dead Sea Scrolls, lately? I mean the parts that have been released to the general public. I hear there are some that few are allowed to see.
It is logical, but i don't see the analogy.
Okay, substitute King's the 'Dead Zone'. It mentions presidents, Hendrix, Joplin, known places in Maine, etc. There's historical data in that.
Still fiction.
There may be the occasional germ of fact in them, but as a rule, your books defy all natural law in their claims, and are a poor source of documentation.
RA
"Regarding the 11,000 Korans: that is like saying the bible must be true since it's the most sold book in the world.
Exactly. Argument from popularity."
Exactly. Which is why it isn't used for supporting the bible.
"But no one really does, do they? Your contradictions between gospels tells me how poorly knit together the tale is."
If no one really does, it is impossible to have bad or good guesswork. That can be defined only when the truth has been revealed.
The signs of very early&consistent christology tell me that it wasn't fabricated.
"You have a few scraps of papyrii. That's not a manuscript."
Relative to other works, we have a bucketload
"Sketchy 3rd person anecdotes, is more accurate."
The argument was that the claims of the bible&koran are of different natures.
"I'm at a point, where I don't really care all that much about 'more evidence', to be honest. That's lending weight to something that has none."
Revisit the sites about the document finds.
"Let me know when this occurs, wouldja?"
Has already occured.
"It's still all guesswork. Have you looked into the Dead Sea Scrolls, lately? I mean the parts that have been released to the general public. I hear there are some that few are allowed to see."
You claimed that the gospel of John didn't exist in 96. When was it written?
"Okay, substitute King's the 'Dead Zone'. It mentions presidents, Hendrix, Joplin, known places in Maine, etc. There's historical data in that.
Still fiction."
It doesn't claim to be an eyewitness account.
Goose:
Exactly. Which is why it isn't used for supporting the bible.
Good. Then we can stop using a bunch of copies as evidence. Glad that's outta the way.
If no one really does, it is impossible to have bad or good guesswork. That can be defined only when the truth has been revealed.
Well, since no truth has been revealed, moot point.
The signs of very early&consistent christology tell me that it wasn't fabricated.
You're kidding, right? You do know the bloody thing was kept under lock & key for nearly a millenia. Plenty of time to sort & edit.
Relative to other works, we have a bucketload
Figuratively speaking? Not really.
Has already occured.
Nope. No insight as to the real identities of the authors.
You claimed that the gospel of John didn't exist in 96. When was it written?
Well, I didn't make that claim.
http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-john
"The traditional date of composition is c.A.D. 100; according to 20th-century scholarship it was composed probably between A.D. 95 and 115. Writers of the late 2d cent. ascribed the work to John, son of Zebedee, who according to tradition lived in Ephesus. However, it is unlikely that this John was the author. Most modern scholars agree that a brief passage in chapters 7 and 8 was not part of the Gospel as originally composed; otherwise the book is usually considered to have been written almost exactly as it stands."
It doesn't claim to be an eyewitness account.
I think you're missing the point here.
Let's take as our example, the Iliad.
"The Iliad (Ancient Greek Ιλιάς, Ilias) is, along with the Odyssey, one of the two major Greek epic poems traditionally attributed to Homer, a supposedly blind Ionian poet. Scholars dispute whether Homer existed, and whether he was one person, but it is clear that the poems spring from a long tradition of oral poetry."
Prior to Schliemann's discovery of Troy, the entire epic was considered to be fiction.
Archeology is providing more proof as the years pass.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=940CE5DB123EF932A1575BC0A9639C8B63
"Now archaeologists have found new proof that Homer's tales were probably based on accurate descriptions of life. At Eleutherna, a relatively little-known archaeological site in Crete that was for centuries a significant Cretan city, they have found the charred remains of a princely warrior and, near the burial site, a decapitated body."
& yet the scholars wrangle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy
"The Iliad as essentially legendary
Some archaeologists and historians maintain that none of the events in Homer are historical. Others accept that there may be a foundation of historical events in the Homeric stories, but say that in the absence of independent evidence it is not possible to separate fact from myth in the stories.
In recent years scholars have suggested that the Homeric stories represented a synthesis of many old Greek stories of various Bronze Age sieges and expeditions, fused together in the Greek memory during the "dark ages" which followed the fall of the Mycenean civilization. In this view, no historical city of Troy existed anywhere: the name derives from a people called the Troies, who probably lived in central Greece. The identification of the hill at Hisarlik as Troy is, in this view, a late development, following the Greek colonisation of Asia Minor in the 8th century BC.
[edit]
The Iliad as essentially historical
Another view is that Homer was heir to an unbroken tradition of epic poetry reaching back some 500 years into Mycenaean times. In this view, the poem's core could reflect a historical campaign that took place at the eve of the decline of the Mycenaean civilization. Much legendary material would have been added during this time, but in this view it is meaningful to ask for archaeological and textual evidence corresponding to events referred to in the Iliad. Such a historical background gives a credible explanation for the geographical knowledge of Troy (which could, however, also have been obtained in Homer's time by visiting the traditional site of the city) and otherwise unmotivated elements in the poem (in particular the detailed Catalogue of Ships). Linguistically, a few verses of the Iliad suggest great antiquity, because they only fit the meter if projected back into Mycenaean Greek, suggesting a poetic tradition spanning the Greek Dark Ages. Even though Homer was Ionian, the Iliad reflects the geography known to the Mycenaean Greeks, showing detailed knowledge of the mainland but not extending to the Ionian islands or Anatolia, which suggests that the Iliad reproduces an account of events handed down by tradition, to which the author did not add his own geographical knowledge."
So, the Iliad may or may not have been an historical work. Yet it shows a distinct eye for detail (note the lineages traced, who killed whom, etc). It mentions Troy (which was discovered). It discusses many attitudes, mindsets, & other items.
Still not an historical work.
It, like the bible, uses detached anecdotes built up by oral tradition over the years, as an 'eyewitness' to events.
Goosehenry
Are we talking about the OT or the NT now? Cuz I will admit that the OT has some valid historical events, but it is the hebrews bloody violent history that isnt always accurate on dating and geography. I view the OT much like Homers writings, NOT the divine word of god. No sir! The bible is the writings of namadic desert dwellers that were driven mad by drought and famine and their stories about themselves absolutely show the clear cut signs of delusion brought on by drought and famine.
As for the NT, much like Homers writings again, have some historical validity of some events, but the literal historical Jesus, it absolutely does not.
Being able to see the real history with in the fake is called critical thinking. I sure wish more people got that.
Amy
Here is a link to some very interesting finds in Caanan.
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
RA
"Exactly. Which is why it isn't used for supporting the bible.
Good.Then we can stop using a bunch of copies as evidence. Glad that's outta the way."
I think we are discussing different things. The manuscripts we have are evidence that what we read today is what was originally written. It doesn't prove that the events happened.
"Well, since no truth has been revealed, moot point."
Since you know it is guesswork, you have to have knowledge of some truth. On what do you base the statement that it is all guesswork?
Otherwise you can say, at most, that you think it is all guesswork.
"You're kidding, right? You do know the bloody thing was kept under lock & key for nearly a millenia. Plenty of time to sort & edit."
If that would be the case, we wouldn't have such a high consistenct between earlier&later finds.
"Nope. No insight as to the real identities of the authors."
Objectively then, one should go with John, Mark, Matthew and Luke until shown otherwise.
As for the Illiad, it might contain fiction, it might contain historic fact.
Either way, it makes no difference. However, if the gospels describe historical events then it makes all the difference in the world.
goose:
I think we are discussing different things. The manuscripts we have are evidence that what we read today is what was originally written. It doesn't prove that the events happened.
I find this an entirely silly argument. You make it sound as if the scribes ran around in their robes w/stylus' behind their ears, triplechecking everything before they write it down, like some kinda newspaper.
It's NOT EVIDENCE. End of discussion.
Since you know it is guesswork, you have to have knowledge of some truth. On what do you base the statement that it is all guesswork
Since it's supernaturally based, & there's no evidence of the supernatural, my 'knowledge' leads me to believe it's all crap.
If that would be the case, we wouldn't have such a high consistenct between earlier&later finds.
Findings? Like what? The tomb that was never found? The distinct lack of external multiple attestation?
Objectively then, one should go with John, Mark, Matthew and Luke until shown otherwise.
Why the hell should I? I've got no background on any of these people. Why should I lend them any more credence than Homer? Or Virgil? Robin Hood?
It's all fairy tales. That simple.
2 centuries of lies. You should be a little incensed.
Ra said:"Why the hell should I? I've got no background on any of these people. Why should I lend them any more credence than Homer? Or Virgil? Robin Hood?
It's all fairy tales. That simple.
2 centuries of lies. You should be a little incensed."
Brovo! Well said! Two thumbs up! :)
SNTC:
Brovo! Well said! Two thumbs up! :)
Thank you, thank you, no applause, just send money, please. ;)
“Thank you, thank you, no applause, just send money, please. ;)”
Don’t you go turning tele-evangelist on me!
I think maybe I will write something, or make a case on the empty tomb some time. I’ll let you know if I do.
RA
"I find this an entirely silly argument. You make it sound as if the scribes ran around in their robes w/stylus' behind their ears, triplechecking everything before they write it down, like some kinda newspaper.
It's NOT EVIDENCE. End of discussion."
Ok. We'll use another word then since i've learned some more english phrases:)
We are well within our epistemic rights to, based on the manuscript findings, assume that what we read today is what was originally written.
"Since it's supernaturally based, & there's no evidence of the supernatural, my 'knowledge' leads me to believe it's all crap."
No evidence that you know of, that is.
"Findings? Like what? The tomb that was never found? The distinct lack of external multiple attestation?"
I am talking about consistency between the manuscript findings.
"Why the hell should I? I've got no background on any of these people. Why should I lend them any more credence than Homer? Or Virgil? Robin Hood?"
I didn't say you should lend them credence, i said that what reason do we have not to assume that they were the original writers?
"It's all fairy tales. That simple.
2 centuries of lies. You should be a little incensed."
2 centuries? Was it written in the 19th century? LOL
Goose:
We are well within our epistemic rights to, based on the manuscript findings, assume that what we read today is what was originally written.
Really? Do we? As I recall, the Masoretic sect had no hand in the copy-making.
Who actually made all these copies, then?
No evidence that you know of, that is.
Induction lends credence. Or the lack thereof.
I am talking about consistency between the manuscript findings.
Written by whom, exactly?
I didn't say you should lend them credence, i said that what reason do we have not to assume that they were the original writers?
Hello? Knock-knock. Hello? Extravagant claims? Lack of background, lack of multiple...are we going around in circles again?
2 centuries? Was it written in the 19th century? LOL
Oops. Caught out.
2 millenia, then.
More reason to be steamed, then.
RA
"Really? Do we? As I recall, the Masoretic sect had no hand in the copy-making.
Who actually made all these copies, then?"
Who made them is not the argument of this point. The fact is that the findings display a high degree of internal consistency. The argument is that we can assume that the text has been transmitted to us accurately based on what we have.
I am talking about consistency between the manuscript findings.
"Written by whom, exactly?"
Still talking about internal consistency between the manuscripts.
"Hello? Knock-knock. Hello? Extravagant claims? Lack of background, lack of multiple...are we going around in circles again?"
Since the claims are "extravagant" we should assume that they aren't written by the only authors that are mentioned in history? That is a non-sequitur.
The "lacks of..." you mention do not affect the internal consistency of the manuscripts.
"Oops. Caught out.
2 millenia, then."
I imagined you meant that but couldn't be sure. The theories of the Jesus-myth reach new heights all the time:)
Goose:
Who made them is not the argument of this point. The fact is that the findings display a high degree of internal consistency. The argument is that we can assume that the text has been transmitted to us accurately based on what we have.
So what, you're not even the slightest bit curious about who did this?
Still talking about internal consistency between the manuscripts.
I'm getting the impression you have no idea.
Since the claims are "extravagant" we should assume that they aren't written by the only authors that are mentioned in history? That is a non-sequitur.
No it's not. By extravagant, I mean wildly out of synch w/the natural world as we know it. We know, for instance, that it's scientifically impossible for a man to be resurrected. We know it's impossible for people to walk on water. I don't care if there are 3 billion MS's testifying to this. I want a whole lot more than what you got.
The "lacks of..." you mention do not affect the internal consistency of the manuscripts.
No, but they do effect the contents.
I imagined you meant that but couldn't be sure. The theories of the Jesus-myth reach new heights all the time:)
Yeah, I occasionally make a mistake. It's rare, but it happens.
RA
"So what, you're not even the slightest bit curious about who did this?"
Ok, so can we conclude that it is reasonable to assume that the gospels have been accurately transmitted to us? As for the authors, sure, i guess it would be interesting to know with 100% certainty who wrote them originally.
What is more interesting though, is if the text we read today is the same that was written originally.
"That is a non-sequitur.
No it's not. By extravagant, I mean wildly out of synch w/the natural world as we know it."
And from this follows that we automatically must assume that someone other that Jonh, Luke etc wrote the gospels? I don't see the logical connection.
"We know, for instance, that it's scientifically impossible for a man to be resurrected. We know it's impossible for people to walk on water."
No we don't. We know the properties of water and how bodies chemically decompose. We have absolutely no idea whether these rules can be bent.
"The "lacks of..." you mention do not affect the internal consistency of the manuscripts.
No, but they do effect the contents."
Well good that we (seem to) agree on the internal consistency. The contents are another discussion, which we have been over several times.
"Yeah, I occasionally make a mistake. It's rare, but it happens."
Good for you! That it happens rarely that is.
Goose:
Ok, so can we conclude that it is reasonable to assume that the gospels have been accurately transmitted to us?
Goodness no. We don't know who wrote the bloody things.
What is more interesting though, is if the text we read today is the same that was written originally.
Still fables.
And from this follows that we automatically must assume that someone other that Jonh, Luke etc wrote the gospels? I don't see the logical connection.
Hey, wild stories are told by wild people.
No we don't. We know the properties of water and how bodies chemically decompose. We have absolutely no idea whether these rules can be bent.
Err,ummm, yes we do.
Well good that we (seem to) agree on the internal consistency. The contents are another discussion, which we have been over several times.
They're inconsistent. I mean, c'mon. They disagree w/each other on SO MANY POINTS, it's ridiculous.
RA
"Ok, so can we conclude that it is reasonable to assume that the gospels have been accurately transmitted to us?
Goodness no. We don't know who wrote the bloody things."
That doesn't affect the internal consistency. If all the manuscripts of, say, Mark correspond to each other, from the earliest to the latest then the internal consistency is high. Which it is. Then it doesn't matter who you assign the gospel to.
"And from this follows that we automatically must assume that someone other that Jonh, Luke etc wrote the gospels? I don't see the logical connection.
Hey, wild stories are told by wild people."
People like Richard Carrier and Paul Tobin LOL
"Err,ummm, yes we do."
How? Since when can science show that the natural laws it is based on cannot be bent?
"They're inconsistent. I mean, c'mon. They disagree w/each other on SO MANY POINTS, it's ridiculous."
I am talking about how the gospels match internally&individually over the course of history. For example Mark fron 2st century AD until the latest document found.
Goose:
That doesn't affect the internal consistency. If all the manuscripts of, say, Mark correspond to each other, from the earliest to the latest then the internal consistency is high. Which it is. Then it doesn't matter who you assign the gospel to.
Well, I'm a proponent of the Marcan priority theory. The authors of Matthew & Luke obviously cribbed off of Mark.
People like Richard Carrier and Paul Tobin LOL
Cute. Tobin used to be a fundie inerrantist, & Carrier's got credibility coming out the wazoo.
How? Since when can science show that the natural laws it is based on cannot be bent?
Well, until you can provide a real-world example disproving this, I'm going to take it on induction.
I am talking about how the gospels match internally&individually over the course of history. For example Mark fron 2st century AD until the latest document found.
See comment above, re: Marcan priority.
& yes, it does go to credibility. When the gospel of Jmmanuel was brought to the public eye, what demands were made? 1st, the proponent's background was checked. Look up Edward Meier, see what I'm talking about. 2nd, proof of the document was demanded. Strangely enough, not to be found, 'destroyed' by Israeli police: only a copy. 3rd, who was an eyewitness? Only a fella named Rashid, a Palistinean whom no 1 could locate: strangely, he'd been assassinated.
I think you take my point here?
Hoaxes are exposed using these methods:
A. Who is the spokesman? What's the credibility quotient?
B. Where's the document?
C. Who's the eyewitness?
Meier failed all of these criteria. It would make no difference if he made 1 or 1 billion copies: it was still a hoax.
Post a Comment